ESM7160 - Case Law: Hall v
Lorimer

1993 case - 66TC349

Point at Issue

Whether a freelance vision mixer was engaged under a series of
contracts of service or assessable under Schedule D as a person in
business on his own account.

Facts

The following is a summary of the basic facts:

In 1985, Mr Lorimer left full-time
employment and became a freelance vision mixer.

In the first 14 months he built up a list
of 22 companies and in the three succeeding years the number on the
list remained at about 20.

He worked for over 800 days in the period
2 February 1985 to 5 April 1989.

His annual number of engagements ranged
between 120 and 150, the longest engagement of which was for 10
days.

All the work was done at studios owned or
rented by the production company on equipment owned or supplied by
the studio company.

Bookings were usually made on the phone to
his home where he had an office, and subsequently confirmed by
letter giving dates, rate of pay etc but there were no formal
written conditions of engagement.

Decision

The Court of Appeal concluded that Mr Lorimer was engaged under
contracts for his services and therefore self-employed.

Commentary

The Court of Appeal did not think it was appropriate just to
apply the test or indicia set out by Cooke J. in the Market
Investigations case (see
ESM7040). Nolan L.J. agreed with the
views expressed by Mummery J. in the High Court where he said:

“In order to decide whether a person carries on
business on his own account it is necessary to consider many
different aspects of that person’s work activity. This is not
a mechanical exercise of running through items on a check list to
see whether they are present in, or absent from, a given situation.
The object of the exercise is to paint a picture from the
accumulation of detail. The overall effect can only be appreciated
by standing back from the detailed picture which has been painted,
by viewing it from a distance and by making an informed,
considered, qualitative appreciation of the whole. It is a matter
of evaluation of the overall effect, which is not necessarily the
same as the sum total of the individual details. Not all details
are of equal weight or importance in any given situation. The
details may also vary in importance from one situation to another.

The process involves painting a picture in each individual
case.”

The point to be drawn from this is that, having obtained all the
relevant information, the object is to stand back and determine
employment status on the basis of an overall view. It is not just a
question of adding up the relevant factors for and against a
particular employment status. Rather what you have to do is make a
subjective judgment based on your overall assessment taking account
of the different weights which apply to individual factors in the
particular case.

Where there are many short-term engagements, Hall v Lorimer
also indicates that it is necessary to consider the personal
factors that exist outside the terms of the direct contractual
relationship the worker has with the engager for the specific
engagement being considered. For example,

engagements may need to be looked at in
the context of the worker's business activities as a whole
including matters such as the worker's exposure to bad debts and
the amount of time and money spent on organising, obtaining, or
carrying out the work

it may be appropriate to take into account
the length of the particular engagement and the number of other
persons for whom similar work is performed.

However, it should be remembered that Nolan L.J. accepted that
“an employment properly so called is not the less an
employment because it is casual rather than regular”. In some
instances therefore the overall picture may point to self-
employment whereas in others it may point to a single umbrella
employment or a series of casual employments.

On the subject of provision of equipment it should be noted
that in the High Court Mummery J stated

“The Crown’s submission emphasised two
particular points. First, the fact that Mr Lorimer has not provided
any of the very expensive equipment necessary for the exercise of
the skill of a vision mixer. Secondly, the fact that all Mr Lorimer
provided was his personal skill. These facts do undoubtedly point
to a contract of service, but they are not necessarily inconsistent
with a contract for services, so as to make the Special
Commissioners’ decision an impossible or a perverse
one.”

This was contrary to the view taken by the Special Commissioner.
In the Court of Appeal Nolan LJ did not comment on this aspect in
his judgment.